ROCKETS HAVE EXTREMELY WEAK THRUST IN THE VACUUM OF SPACE - Read This Proof!

So, you are saying a gun fired in space would have no recoil?

That's really how a rocket works. Mass i transffered in one direction, and propels the rocket. Recoil, if you will.
That's also why/how ion thrusters work.


I'm all in on the concept that many modern scientific "truths" are flawed. But this is not one of them, imho.

The gun would have much less recoil in a vacuum. Remember that as the bullet exits the gun, the bullet hits resistance from the air still in the barrelled of the gun. That resistance accounts for most of the gun's recoil.

That is why guns with shorter barrels have less recoil than guns with longer barrels when using the same bullet.

The gun would have much less recoil in a vacuum. Remember that as the bullet exits the gun, the bullet hits resistance from the air still in the barrelled of the gun. That resistance accounts for most of the gun's recoil.

That is why guns with shorter barrels have less recoil than guns with longer barrels when using the same bullet.

So, some recoil after all, then. Total vacum should prevent recoil entirely according to your theory.

And whats the point, exactly? No sattelites in orbit? No ISS? Or is it just the moon landings thats bugging you?


Look, I'm usually considered open minded, but it's these things that ruins genuine questioning.

Sorry to tell all you deceived ones, there is no friction in a vacuum, no friction no movement, simple as that
you-all!!

Then explain STEREO. There are two satellites that look at the back side of the sun and have seen sunspots before they were visibly on Earth. They could not have gotten where they are without rockets.

If you could get a human and object in a vacuum to do this, which you can't - nothing would happen.

You get duped by Newtons law of mass and here's why.
When people argue rockets they get told that a rocket pushes against it's own mass, inside of itself, so try this experiment.

Get someone to hang you up and give you a medicine ball. Put a balloon above your head and have a pin taped on top of your head about 1 inch from the balloom.
Now with all your might, throw that medicine ball to the floor and you'll find that your balloon is still inflated, meaning you didn't move the opposite way as to what you are told. Why?

Because simply ejecting mass downwards, you are simply giving up energy one way with your mass being relieved of it.
There has to be another way.
The other way is to eject hot gases downwards because the hot gases expand the atmosphere and push that atmosphere away from the flame. It compresses it but that atmosphere compresses right back into a squeeze which forces you up.

It should be simply if you put your mind to it.
This throwing a medicine ball from a wheeled chair is a con. It's a joke because it's being used horizontally as if the mass ejected moves your chair.
It's true in a way but it's not the real reason as to why you move.
You move because you have to throw that mass in a slightly upward motion and you are compressing that air infront of that mass.
The more dense that mass is, the more atmospheric pressure that mass can displace but it's only compressing the air that the mass takes up and that air springs right back to equalise which forces your body back a little.

Go and look at those blokes in those back pack rocket suits where they lift off the ground.
Do you seriously believe that those back packs have a combustion chamber inside that forces the back pack upwards and the ejected burning fuel is doing nothing?

Take a look at why a compressed air cylinder can propel someone on the ground. It's the same thing. It is forced into the less dense air which then gets compressed and springs right back at the expended gases from the side and squeezes you forward. That's how it works. It's a squeeze motion.

It's like trying to grip the wet soap in a bath. When you squeeze, what happens?
Imagine doing it by playing one potato two potato with that soap. It moves up all the time for as long as you squeeze it.

This is what's happening to the fuel expended from a rocket.
As long as that fuel comes out in a steady flow, it will be thrust into the air by expansion of that air (burning rocket fuel) and contraction squeezing right back like the soap, where your hands are the atmospheric pressure and the soap is the hot expelled gases.

I see a few people blurted out that a rocket takes its own oxidiser with it and that's why it doesn't need air.

Use your loaf and seriously think about this.
Of course it uses oxidiser, because it if didn't, it couldn't thrust the burning fuel out of it against the atmosphere to give the rocket lift.

Look at a bottle rocket.

If you filled it with water; tipped it upside down and left go - it would fall to the ground, because there's no oxidiser to push that water out with enough force to compress tha air below it for that air to squeeze back against the mass of that more dense water.

Add compressed air to the bottle and you now have that thrust.
You see that thrust effect against the atmosphere below it by it's resistance to that water coming out at speed which compresses the air under it and forces it away from it to the sides to come back and squeeze back, creating a platform for as long as that water is ejected at the same rate.
It's why you see it fan out at the bottom and get thinner at the nozzle because the water is compressing that air under it and forcing that air back around it to grip as it causes a wide platform.

Let me tell you something else as well.

Any rocket that you see on TV that lifts off in slow motion is a fake.
I know there's sensible people on here and I know there's many that simply can't understand, as well as the usual people that will deny it all at all costs to keep the space shenanigans alive.

Either a rocket takes off vertically on "full thrust" like a springboard jump to not only gain height but to immediately gain stability...or it's a fake or a dud and it's as simple as that.

Any person that believes a rocket can push itself up from inside a combustion chamber. I feel sorry for you if you genuinely believe this.
A car will allow you to push off using a combustion chamber because fuel and air intake forces a piston which drives the shafts then wheels... horizontally.

Anyone who is interested, go and look at any rocket launches. Either army launches, model launches or whatever and you will see exactly what I'm talking about. They will launch at speed, like they are taking a jump off a trampoline, kind of thing.

Now go and look at any TV space rocket launch and watch how slo9w they lift off. It's almost at jogging speed.
If this happened, that rocket would be laid in a wreck on the launchpad, in flames.

It needs immediate speed for stability, just like throwing a dart or firing an arrow.
Get on your bike and go to the bottom a hill. Now try and ride up it by pedalling slowly. What happens?
You end up looking like Norman Wisdon doing some wobbly stunts and then you'd probably fall off.

Start off quick and you stabilise.

Don't let anybody dupe you by telling you that rockets work better in a vacuum due to less friction. It's comical.
The whole reason everything on Earth works is because of friction. You have to have friction because it's a force you create with your energy or action that creates an equal and opposite reaction, otherwise it cannot work.

Don't let anyone use physics books either. The books are wrong and the science that is being taught, is fantasy science.

Also don't be duped by someone telling you that space rockets take off slowly because they are so huge. There's no such thing as a space rocket. Never has been and never will be.

Any rocket that people see launched is a small ballistic missile that arcs into the sea after a very very short time because they use up their fuel very quickly.
Once you see any rocket arc, it's finished, it's over with. It's going down.
Anyone that thinks aspace rocket can arc after a minute to get off this supposed planet...well...what can I say. All I can do is hope you eventauly see common sense prevail.

They are fakes and hoaxes like the Mars rovers.

[link to www.youtube.com]



Thread: LAST TRY GETTING YOU TO READ THIS - The Mars Rovers Are FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE!

excellent. scud from cluesforum.info makes similar and equally compelling arguments.
we have been duped for so long we now reject common sense with vehemence.
some of the aggressive responses on this thread gives the game away.
great post again.

that's the best you've got? They somehow faked seeing a sunspot BEFORE it was visible on Earth? You didn't think that through, did you?

that's the best you've got? They somehow faked seeing a sunspot BEFORE it was visible on Earth? You didn't think that through, did you?

The fake STEREO theories aren't as popular as the fake mars rover or moon hoax theories. None would surprise me anymore.

You can get that far into space, just not with conventional rockets. What you do is get into low earth orbit and then use ion propulsion to very slowly move you away from the earth over a period of months. This is how Europe was able to crash a probe into the moon recently. That craft was probably the first man-made object to get to the moon. The bullshit is there to explain the Apollo missions which were impossible.

Ion drives are recent. That can't explain STEREO. They got there using rockets, whether you like it or not. Just admit you can't explain STEREO either.

I already explained STEREO. They are FAKE. Or are you unable to read English? Scroll up and read that part again.

Thread: LAST TRY GETTING YOU TO READ THIS - The Mars Rovers Are FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE!

That isn't explaining. That is handwaving. You haven't explained how they obtained images that can only be obtained by seeing the back side of the sun. Those images HAVE seen sunspots on the sun before they rotated into view of Earth. Those can only be obtained by having satellites in the positions claimed.

you think so? Then PROVE it. How else were the images obtained?

Low quality CGI?

I have a bridge for sale. Are you interested?

CGI could only explain how the images were created, NOT how they contain images of sunspots on the back of the Sun that were not yet visible to Earth. Try again.

Newton's 3 rd law still applies so you would still get some minimal recoil.

To picture the gun example better, think of the other extreme. Imagine how much recoil you'd get if something more solid than air was in the gun barrel. Picture if a Superman-Bugs Bunny put his long finger down the gun barrel. When you fired you would get the mother-fuck of all recoils backwards.

the hundreds of thousands of people that have seen rockets take off slowly either don't exist or are lying? The speed at takeoff is due to the thrust to mass ratio which dictates the acceleration. Plus, a rocket that carries people by design has a lower acceleration to avoid squishing those inside.

It's simple to understand

Rocket engines push against the ground during launch and then they push against the air while in the earth's atmosphere. They slowly lose thrust as the air gets thinner until they are in the vaccum of space. When in space there is nothing to push against so they must rely solely on the thrust generated by pushing against the mass of it's own fuel. This is a very weak thrust.

Low quality CGI?

I have a bridge for sale. Are you interested?